Ontario Think Tank Releases Papers on Representation by Population
23 March 2010 | Electoral Boundaries
The Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, an Ontario-based think tank, has released two papers on the principle of representation by population in Canada.
The first paper, entitled Some are More Equal than Others, examines how closely the distribution of seats in Canada's legislature adheres to the principle of representation by population. The paper argues that Canada has drifted too far away from the principle of representation by population, to a point that is beyond what is acceptable under international norms.
While this short paper does a good job of demonstrating the differences in representation by population by province in Canada, it has two major flaws in its arguments.
First, the paper repeatedly states that the Canadian approach does not live up to "internationally accepted democratic standards". However, the paper never does st out what those standards are, and how the Canadian approach does not meet those standards.
Second, the paper states that "the formula for divvying up seats in the House does not adhere to the standard of rep-by-pop, as required by the Canadian Constitution. However, the formula for divvying up seats is itself part of the Constitution. The formula is what is required by the constitution, not the principle. The paper questions the constitutionality of the formula, failing to understand that the formula is the constitution.
The second paper, entitled The Principle of Representation by Population in Canadian Federal Politics, is a more detailed piece that examines the history of the principle of representation by population in Canada. This paper also argues that violations of the principle of representation by population in Canada are unconstitutional, and suggests that the federal parliament has the power to fix this violation by unilaterally changing the law that provinces cannot have fewer seats than they were allocated in 1976.
This requirement is contained in section 51(1)(2) of The Constitution Act, 1867 (Canada). While it may be a good policy idea to remove this rule, I do not agree with the paper that it can be done unilaterally. In my opinion, removing it would require constitutional amendment in accordance with the amending provisions in Part V of The Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada).